Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.

Posted By

Categories

Tags

Joy Victory is Deputy Managing Editor of HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets as @thejoyvictory.

Small study. Big health claims. Trade group involvement. It’s a pattern we’ve seen time and again in news releases linking a food to a questionable health benefit.

Long considered a downmarket cooking oil with ho-hum health benefits, cottonseed oil has now been linked to lowering cholesterol, according to a recent news release from the University of Georgia. As the release explains, “researchers suggested a fatty acid unique to cottonseed oil, dihydrosterculic acid, may help prevent the accumulation of triglycerides, a type of fat, in the body.”

Perhaps that’s true. But before we all run out and make cottonseed oil the new extra virgin olive oil, there are key red flags in the research to keep in mind. Namely, the tiny study size (just 15 men), and the length of study time (5 days). And then there’s a detail that lurks at the very end of the release: The study was funded in part by Cotton Incorporated, the trade organization representing U.S. cotton growers.

Small study. Big health claims. Trade group involvement. It’s a pattern we’ve seen time and again in news releases linking a food to a questionable health benefit. It also happens with larger observational studies that can’t establish a cause-and-effect pattern. For example, just yesterday, the California Walnut Commission and the American Heart Association promoted what even they admit are preliminary results related to eating nuts.

‘Readers should always be skeptical’

Fortunately, these kinds of claims have received some news scrutiny, such as this 2016 piece by Eater. But the corporate-backed PR machines that help turn ordinary foods into “superfoods” are still going strong–and both journalists and consumers need to digest these news release headlines with a heaping serving of skepticism.

“Research paid for by food companies generally shows what is known as the ‘funding effect’—the results almost invariably favor the sponsor’s marketing interests,” explained Marion Nestle, PhD, professor emeritus at New York University and author of Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat. “Readers should always be skeptical when an industry-funded study reports a ‘breakthrough’ or suggests that ‘everything you thought about nutrition is wrong.'”

Last week it was Big Cotton. Over the summer it was this news release from Big Cherry touting that “Montmorency tart cherries may help enhance gut health,” by increasing “good bacteria” in people’s digestive systems. The study was short (one week) and small (9 people).

As our reviewers noted, “this study did not show that Montmorency tart cherries may enhance gut health, and this news release did not even explain that there’s no scientific consensus on what defines ‘good’ bacteria, ‘bad’ bacteria, or a ‘healthy’ gut.”

‘Vague…preliminary…too simple’

Just a month before, Big Mango took a turn, claiming a study showed “mangoes helped improve cardiovascular and gut health in women.” Again, short study (27 days) with low enrollment (24 women). There was no control group, so it’s actually impossible to know if any health benefits were due to the mangoes or something else.

“Given the vague nature of the reported findings, the fact that the relevant research paper is not publicly available (at the time of this review) and the preliminary nature of the study, the question becomes: Why issue a news release on this now?” our reviewers pondered.

And if we go back to this spring, the same pattern surfaces in this news release from the National Pecan Shellers Association. Twenty-six participants ate pecans daily for a month, leading to better “metabolic health.”

Our reviewers weren’t pleased. “People are hungry for good advice on how to eat in order to lessen their risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases. But this short news release paints a too simple picture based on a month-long study of a few patients,” they noted.

Big Avocado, Big Raspberry, Big Pasta, Big Mango…should we go on?

When we started to search our archives of 600+ news release reviews, we realized the examples above were but a few we’ve got on hand. We’ve also analyzed health claims from these trade groups, among others:

As these reviews indicate, many news releases inflate study findings and minimize limitations. Industry involvement isn’t always made clear, often found in the fine print versus upfront. This doesn’t stun Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute at the University of Ottawa and a HealthNewsReview.org contributor.

“A trade group’s job isn’t to promote or protect public health, but rather to promote and protect the sales of their products,” he said. ” …Journalists who uncritically amplify their views, are doing their readers a great disservice.”

You might also like

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Current ye@r *

Leave this field empty

Our Comments Policy

We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.

Newsletter Signup

Get caught up with this once-a-week email

We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share your e-mail address with any third parties.

Newsletter Signup

Sign up for HealthNewsReview.org weekly email digest

Thank you for joining the HealthNewsReview.org mailing list. It’s a good way for you to stay up-to-date on what we’ve published, even if you forget to come to our website every day or every week.-Gary Schwitzer, Publisher, HealthNewsReview.org

Email Address*

First Name*

Last Name

Please verify

Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By submitting this form, you are granting: HealthNewsReview.org, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States, https://www.healthnewsreview.org permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Mailchimp. (See their Email Privacy Policy for details.)